Even shoes are only an ornament. Since "reach here" does not need any effort of transportation... Dear Dechen Norbu, I declare as a big fan of the cryptic sentences by muni! So, please do not remove them.

"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour" ~ Padmasambhava ~

When i am right informed would Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche have had some teachings from our Yongdzin Rinpoche, no doubt that Rigpa would be used many times in the sense of awareness........

KY

Whatever teachings ChNN received from LTN, it is certain they were in Tibetan and not English.

In the end, it does not matter what word you use. If you want to called Rigpa "George" it is also ok, as long as people understand what the word "George" is a symbol for. But if you examine the the range of meanings the word rig pa has in Dzogchen texts, you quickly come to the conclusion it is inappropriate to crib "rig pa" with a single English word. Hence it is better to leave it in Tibetan or backtranslate it into Sanskrit -- hence vidyā.

just shoes, just hot chocolate, nothing crypic. just reality; no fabrications or theories (views).

just shoes, just hot chocolate, just typing to you right now. thats all.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

just shoes, just hot chocolate, just typing to you right now. thats all.

Some degree of truth to that but such statements leave room for misinterpretation wouldn't you say? They convey one fold emptiness(absence of self) but subtly give credence to objects and processes. One may misconstrue insight like this as suggesting the existence of an objective world which remains after the natural state has been actualized.

just shoes, just hot chocolate, just typing to you right now. thats all.

Some degree of truth to that but such statements leave room for misinterpretation wouldn't you say? They convey one fold emptiness(absence of self) but subtly give credence to objects and processes. One may misconstrue insight like this as suggesting the existence of an objective world which remains after the natural state has been actualized.

just shoes, just hot chocolate, just typing to you right now. thats all.

Some degree of truth to that but such statements leave room for misinterpretation wouldn't you say? They convey one fold emptiness(absence of self) but subtly give credence to objects and processes. One may misconstrue insight like this as suggesting the existence of an objective world which remains after the natural state has been actualized.

Namdrol wrote:Non-dual in Dzogchen does not discount a subject and an object. It is just that subject and object are non-dual. So when you recognize your primordial state, you are recognizing your own face, as it were.

The term "recognize" is used over and over again in Dzogchen texts. It is an experiential unmediated direct recognition. That recogniton is the basis for your knowledge/knowing/vidyā. Without that recognition, you are in a state of ingorance/āvidya.

If there is no truly existent subject (a subjective self can be deconstructed into five self-less aggregates) nor truly existent object (all objects, or aggregates, dependently originates and are empty) to begin with, much less to merge subject and object into one, how does non-dual of subject and object apply here? Is non-dual here the case that in recognizing, there is just the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa without a recognizer nor some thing being recognized, and furthermore this non-duality that there never was a recognizer (existent subject) nor something recognized (existent object) is always already so yet ignorantly conceived otherwise?

Is non-duality as you describe similar to what 3rd Karmapa wrote:

Self manifestation, which has never existed as such, is erroneously seen as an object. Through ignorance, self-awareness is mistakenly experienced as an "I". Through attachment to this duality we are caught in the conditioned world. May the root of confusion be found.

Yes, I frankly disagree with calling rang rig self-awareness for a number of reasons, not least of which I am a native English speaker, and understand the nuances of English better than LTN.

But in the end, if one has understood what rang rig actually is, that is more important than the word that we use for it.

Tashi delek,

Very interesting, your interpretation(s) about what should be and not regarding Dzogchen.

What do you think about the qualities of our Yongdzin Rinpoche?

He is assisted by many very well learned people who have a university degree, and some of them can translate Tibetan very well like Jean Luc Achard ,Donatelli, Snellgrove, Ermakovi, John Reynolds etc. and they all make the same translations about self awareness.

So it is very sure that Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche is as well perfectly informed about Dzogchen and also about his Tibetan to English translated teachings. No need to place here your so called better understanding of English, i guess there are persons around Lopon Tenzin Namdak who can translate Tibetan as well as you do or even maybe better.

Further is the understanding about Dzogchen from Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche of an excellent quality because he is a Rigdzin and so are his words trustable and also all his in English translated teachings.

So better no George better the use of awareness, if one has understood of course what would be awareness.

Mutsog MarroKY

THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNEDIF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGEHE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MANWHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD

kalden yungdrung wrote:What do you think about the qualities of our Yongdzin Rinpoche?

I only met him once, and never took teachings from him, but he is a great master.

He is assisted by many very well learned people who have a university degree, and some of them can translate Tibetan very well like Jean Luc Achard ,Donatelli, Snellgrove, Ermakovi, John Reynolds etc. and they all make the same translations about self awareness.

Achard, Donatelli, and Ermakovi are not native english speakers (as you are not); Snellgrove is ancient, his book on Bon is 50 years old before people had any understanding of the nuances of Dzogchen, and Reynolds too was educated in the 60's and has habits which persist from that era.

N

i guess there are persons around Lopon Tenzin Namdak who can translate Tibetan as well as you do or even maybe better.

Perhaps, but I will stand by my opinion. You and I have gone back and forth on this one too many times. It is not useful. So we will agree to disagree.

kalden yungdrung wrote:What do you think about the qualities of our Yongdzin Rinpoche?

I only met him once, and never took teachings from him, but he is a great master.

He is assisted by many very well learned people who have a university degree, and some of them can translate Tibetan very well like Jean Luc Achard ,Donatelli, Snellgrove, Ermakovi, John Reynolds etc. and they all make the same translations about self awareness.

Achard, Donatelli, and Ermakovi are not native english speakers (as you are not); Snellgrove is ancient, his book on Bon is 50 years old before people had any understanding of the nuances of Dzogchen, and Reynolds too was educated in the 60's and has habits which persist from that era.

Jean-Luc Achard is a native french speaking person and his English is praised by prof. Henk Blezer of university Leiden (NL). It is a pitty that he is not here present aboard.

Indeed the translations in English out of Tibetan from Jean-Luc Achard do belong to the best Tibetan translations. So it is not true that you as a native English speaking person, together of course linked to your education, would be better in English translations than a Frenchman like Jean Luc Achard from the Sorbonne / Paris. You would probably have a better accent then JLA, i guess.

N

i guess there are persons around Lopon Tenzin Namdak who can translate Tibetan as well as you do or even maybe better.

Perhaps, but I will stand by my opinion. You and I have gone back and forth on this one too many times. It is not useful. So we will agree to disagree.

Ok if you do insist or are convinced about your points of view, then i can understand that somehow. But nevertheless, i would point out the necessity for a standard, for Dzogchen terms. This because we deal here with exact the same experiences......

One can never add or substract things related to Dzogchen, that is clear.So i guess it is due to the English language shortcomings, that we explain the same things with different words, or we make a mistake with the right following order of Dzogchen experiences. But besides this, i can imagine myself that a Tibetan Dzogchenpa with knowedge of corect Tibetan, could have the same problems with some Dzogchen experiences if wrong understood the meaning of the Tibetan.....

Further was this discussion very usefull. It shows that Dzogchen can be approached on different ways explained by different Dzogchen Masters.

Mutsog MarroKY

N

THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNEDIF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGEHE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MANWHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD

kalden yungdrung wrote:[color=#0080FF]Jean-Luc Achard is a native french speaking person and his English is praised by prof. Henk Blezer of university Leiden (NL). It is a pitty that he is not here present aboard.

I welcome JLA's presence. I respect him a lot. I don't know Hank Blezer, but I am rather unimpressed by a lot of his writing, specifically on Tibetan medicine (something about which I definitely know more since I am a trained sman pa). Also Henk Blezer is not a native English speaker.

Indeed the translations in English out of Tibetan from Jean-Luc Achard do belong to the best Tibetan translations.

JLA has some funny translation equivalents that I think are odd, but in general he understands the meaning of Dzogchen texts.

So it is not true that you as a native English speaking person, together of course linked to your education, would be better in English translations than a Frenchman like Jean Luc Achard from the Sorbonne / Paris. You would probably have a better accent then JLA, i guess.

Anyone tranlslating into their own native language will do better than someone who is not.

But nevertheless, i would point out the necessity for a standard, for Dzogchen terms. This because we deal here with exact the same experiences......

That is not going to happen anytime soon. Dzogchen Community uses its jargon following ChNN and Adriano Clemente; Padma Publishing has their jargon; Rangjung Yeshe has its jargon; Tony Duff has his (awkward) jargon; Dharmacakra Translation committee has its; You Bonpos have yours following John Reynolds primarily as far as I can see, etc.

One can never add or substract things related to Dzogchen, that is clear.So i guess it is due to the English language shortcomings, that we explain the same things with different words, or we make a mistake with the right following order of Dzogchen experiences.

There is no shortcoming in the English language. Actually, English, being the European language with the highest number of synonyms, the most heterogenous language in Europe, is the most ideal for translations, especially translations of a technical nature because it is rigid about word order in way that Romance and Tuetonic languages are not.

Further, even within Dzogchen literature, the same things are explained with different terminology. The personal experience of Dzogchen is vastly more important than the words.

It shows that Dzogchen can be approached on different ways explained by different Dzogchen Masters.

What I observe is that for the most part the language this or that master uses depends on who they get as a translator and when. These days, non of Reynolds conventions are in vogue in Dzogchen Community.

A lot of ChNN's translations of terms depend in the fact that he started teaching Dzogchen in Italian first, and then merely translated his Italian translations into English, for example, lhun grup in Italian is autoperfectione or self-perfection in English.

kalden yungdrung wrote:Jean-Luc Achard is a native french speaking person and his English is praised by prof. Henk Blezer of university Leiden (NL). It is a pitty that he is not here present aboard.

I welcome JLA's presence. I respect him a lot. I don't know Hank Blezer, but I am rather unimpressed by a lot of his writing, specifically on Tibetan medicine (something about which I definitely know more since I am a trained sman pa). Also Henk Blezer is not a native English speaker.

[color=#0080FF]Well both nevertheless can conversate and translate in correct English, proof of that are their journals etc they publish .

Indeed the translations in English out of Tibetan from Jean-Luc Achard do belong to the best Tibetan translations.

JLA has some funny translation equivalents that I think are odd, but in general he understands the meaning of Dzogchen texts.

So it is not true that you as a native English speaking person, together of course linked to your education, would be better in English translations than a Frenchman like Jean Luc Achard from the Sorbonne / Paris. You would probably have a better accent then JLA, i guess.

Anyone tranlslating into their own native language will do better than someone who is not. Again see above i doubt that realy. If above mentioned persons were not academics of such a high degree then i would agree.

But nevertheless, i would point out the necessity for a standard, for Dzogchen terms. This because we deal here with exact the same experiences......

That is not going to happen anytime soon. Dzogchen Community uses its jargon following ChNN and Adriano Clemente; Padma Publishing has their jargon; Rangjung Yeshe has its jargon; Tony Duff has his (awkward) jargon; Dharmacakra Translation committee has its; You Bonpos have yours following John Reynolds primarily as far as I can see, etc.

Bonpos have so their translators and they are many. Most of them have a western title Phd / prof. so it is not only John who does the job.

One can never add or substract things related to Dzogchen, that is clear.So i guess it is due to the English language shortcomings, that we explain the same things with different words, or we make a mistake with the right following order of Dzogchen experiences.

There is no shortcoming in the English language. Actually, English, being the European language with the highest number of synonyms, the most heterogenous language in Europe, is the most ideal for translations, especially translations of a technical nature because it is rigid about word order in way that Romance and Tuetonic languages are not.

English would be a combination of French and German when i understood that well. In German one can express oneself also very exact.

Further, even within Dzogchen literature, the same things are explained with different terminology. The personal experience of Dzogchen is vastly more important than the words.

Yeh its only to be or not in the NS.

It shows that Dzogchen can be approached on different ways explained by different Dzogchen Masters.

What I observe is that for the most part the language this or that master uses depends on who they get as a translator and when. These days, non of Reynolds conventions are in vogue in Dzogchen Community.

Like said before, John is not the only one within the Bonpo community.But he is doing his best.

A lot of ChNN's translations of terms depend in the fact that he started teaching Dzogchen in Italian first, and then merely translated his Italian translations into English, for example, lhun grup in Italian is autoperfectione or self-perfection in English.

Muy complicado lhun grup.Mutsog MarroKY

N

THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNEDIF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGEHE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MANWHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD

kalden yungdrung wrote:Again see above i doubt that realy. If above mentioned persons were not academics of such a high degree then i would agree.

In general, I am very underwhelmed by academic scholars, especially European ones. I find European Academia very rigid and prejudiced. It is very hard in European Acedemia to be taken seriously if you are a practitioner.

Bonpos have so their translators and they are many. Most of them have a western title Phd / prof. so it is not only John who does the job.

"PhD" does not mean very much to me. It is just a title for getting a job. I have meant many PhD's in Buddhist studies from Harvard and so on who are not very learned about Buddhism in general. They are learned in writing papers, much of which is filled with crap.

English would be a combination of French and German when i understood that well. In German one can express oneself also very exact.

Yes, German is a very precise language, and in some respects is better for translating Tibetan texts than English because both languages are agglutinative. Also German can reproduce the subject-object-verb structure of Tibetan quite well, whereas English cannot.

Nevertheless, since English is forged out Anglo-Saxon, French, Latin and Greek, and easily absorbs terms from other languages such as nirvana, samsara, etc. In my opinion, since English is now the international language of advanced scholarship, this proves that English is the best language to translation Dharma texts into, all thanks to the British Empire, Brittania Rule the Waves.

Namdrol wrote:... since English is now the international language of advanced scholarship, this proves that English is the best language to translation Dharma texts into, all thanks to the British Empire, Brittania Rule the Waves.

That's an easy short-cut ... I have the feeling that French would have been a better choice for the dharma, because of the multiplicity of his diversified origins, including Greek, Latin but old French and many other languages too, and a grammatical ability to put subject/object/verb and other in any position, it always works. But as business rules the world, english is now preponderant

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -